Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Movies' started by Reggie W, Jul 31, 2018.
Or, rather, Michael Apted.
Gone with the Breeze
The Lord of the Singular Ring
The Godson (without the father)
The Birth of a Notion
The Best Months of Our Lives
The Bridge on the River Quick
My Short Lady
The Sound of a Musical Note
How the Midwest Was Won
The Venison Shopper
When Apted dies, the project dies with him, ending the longest running film project ever. Who would have told those children that their lives would be enshrined thus?
From the articles and photos, a number of scenes were filmed in Suffern, though I don't know if they did anything inside the Lafayette. I might journey up there to see it, haven't been there since the summer of 2013 so it will be like seeing an ex-girlfriend. If I'm smart, I won't look at the booth because I will just get angry
This is a joke right? Where’s the
From the 8:00 mark on to this damning quote-
"Major studios wouldn't touch it"
And this is why "Major" studios suck presently!
Citizen Kane 1hr 59 min
Casablanca 1hr 42 min
The Wizard of Oz 1hr 42 min
There's too much flab in film!
And in the same year as The Wizard of Oz, the same director managed to make Gone With the Wind 238 minutes.
After viewing the supplied video from Bryan^H (ref. to Message #146), I have been enlightened by just how much Netflix has done for some of our truer filmmakers in juxtaposition to where Hollywood has seemed to have gone. Bravo to Netflix for their brave support of Martin Scorsese's "The Irishman". I mean, really, what major Hollywood studio could be so blind as to show trepidation towards an epic film that reunites Martin Scorsese, Robert De Niro, Al Pacino, Joe Pesci and Harvey Keitel? Obviously, those at the table do not understand their vineyards or rarefied bottles from the cellar that were placed before them. Thankfully, Netflix did.
A Footnote on Running Times:
As I stop and think about it, there are even some 2 hour films that would've benefited from a trimming of some 20 or more minutes, as well.
With all the interviews saying they didn't want to give us the money, I'm curious, how much did it cost to make this movie?
I've heard around $180 million.
And how Netflix can pay it? Especially that several big studios can share the cost. How Netflix could afford all this just by itself?
If I'm not mistaking, just one movie Valerian brought down a studio.
Netflix is probably doing it for the prestige. They will have very little promotion for it which they won't have to pay for but a traditional studio would. I do think that Netflix is too loose with their money however.
Because they are operating under a completely different financial model from a traditional studio. Netflix has ongoing income coming in through subscriptions, and their model is to increase the subscriber base. They are currently taking on debt to be able to build out their content and have enough content to lure new subscribers and keep their current subscribers. The risk to Netflix at this moment in shelling out $180MM is much less than say, Paramount, shelling out that same amount, then having to add in a ton of cash to market it, then split that money with the theater chain model. And their chief way to make that money back is through people buying tickets to see it. Netflix doesn't have any of that complication so they can be a bit freer.
A studio can recoup more money through the (shrinking) home video market, and then selling streaming rights, but the risk to a traditional studio on a movie like that, with that kind of budget, means that they would absolutely lose money on it. The risk to way too high. I love Scorsese, but it isn't a bet I would make if I were running a studio. But if I were running Netflix, it IS a bet I would make because all the buzz they are getting about this film helps then NOW, even before the movie is streaming there.
Different models entirely.
Well, the filmmakers I have heard speak about Netflix have had nothing but wonderful things to say. Netflix does not give notes or make suggestions. They let the filmmaker do whatever it is they want to do. Personally, I love this. I mean I'm not happy about the idea that Scorsese, the Coens, Alex Garland, Dan Gilroy, etc, are making pictures that should get shown in a cinema but will only get limited runs or go direct to streaming.
This is where we are though. Audiences will pay to see a costume or a "brand" but they no longer go to a movie because it has been made by a talented filmmaker. They don't care about who the actor is, just the costume they are wearing and if the film is part of a "franchise."
I love how you say that as if any other real world considerations have no bearing on those decisions, as if audiences simply decided they only like franchises, rather than leaving open the possibility that what people want to see and when and where is shaped as much by available options, delivery methods, pricing and convenience.
I don’t mean to be a jerk or devil’s advocate either, but when did the concept of studio notes become so frowned upon?
Lots of people are involved in the creation of film, and I don’t think it’s fair to the many talented people who work a variety of (often unheralded) jobs to conclude that studio notes are bad. Many of the best and most beloved films of all time have been shaped by the studios that financed and released them. If the director or writer is the seed that starts the film’s gestation, the studio can be the womb that allows that baby to grow into a healthy and whole person.
For every publicized example of a studio taking a film away from a director, there are countless more unheralded examples of how a studio has helped shape a film. Sometimes things that are so clear to the filmmakers who have lived with the material every day that they lose track of the possibility that the audience isn’t able to pick up on what they’re trying to say. Having a good production executive assigned to your film can be the difference between “that’s a good concept that didn’t come together” and “that’s a great picture.” Even the world’s best filmmakers can benefit from having a sounding board to bounce ideas off of.
It’s great that the Coens didn’t have to deal with an unhelpful scenario of too many cooks in the kitchen. But that doesn’t mean that the entire concept of the people who are in charge of allocating millions of dollars to making a film and wanting to have the chance to make sure it comes out right is an invalid method of working.
One advantage of Netflix/streaming is that you can return to a film rather than think you have to sit through something because you have paid for it.
My wife asked why this wasn't going to have a traditional theatrical release and instead just a limited one. She said "Couldn't Netflix make $80 million or $100 million in the theater before moving it to their streaming service?" She's not wrong, but I said that's just not the business they're in (and they'd have to share some of that 100 million with theater owners, plus pay more for promotion, etc.). But her point is a good one: Netflix could recoup some of their costs for this movie with a traditional release. That they choose not to tells you all you need to know about their priorities.